Liberty

12/28/2013

The saga of Phil Robertson's suspension from A&E's money making machine, "Duck Dynasty," has come to a happy ending (for the time being). The forces of good have won a battle against the wholly intolerant bullies who ironically push their ideas of "tolerance" and "anti-bullying." Perhaps the icing on the cake is the ignoring of efforts to capitalize by extortion whore, Jesse Jackson.

There are lessons that can be taken from the saga as it unfolded over the last couple of weeks. The lessons, which stem from something the pompous TOTUS reader in Hawaii might refer to as a "teachable moment," illuminate the state of at least three facets of our society and its culture. Two areas are painted with a damning brush as exposed by the various reactions to Phil's answer to the targeted question by the liberal ragporter. The third area is highlighted as a reason to not abandon all hope.

07/28/2013

There are a plethora of complaints about our federal and state governments. I think we can ignore the complaints from those who believe government is too small or does not do enough, as those complaints are equivalent to lamenting that the level of damage is too low. On the other hand, reasonable complaints, those dealing with big spending and overreach, need to be addressed. The problem with addressing those complaints is that too often, those who complain don't really want to stop the actions they decry... or they seek to only limit those governmental oversteps that don't comport with their personal philosophies or desires.

Focusing on the federal government first, we must examine the means to a good government end. Perhaps we don't need to engage in root cause analysis, at least not initially, to stem the flow of waste, burden, and strangling regulation from those who enjoy the power and perks of federal elected office. I think the late Ronald Reagan was on the right track when he uttered the following:

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

06/24/2011

It has been said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, but to this Tea Party organizer, flattery is not the goal. Of course, a little flattery can be nice. Then again, the source of the flattery must be considered. Since the source of the flattery is noted communist and former Obama Green (red) Menace Czar, Van Jones, I suggest that it is not a positive thing.

The Tea Party movement (please don't say the Tea Party, as we are not a party and regardless of what some self-appointed national figureheads ((The Tea Party movement's Van Joneses, if you will)) would have you believe, we do not all follow the leader) began, grew, and still thrives based on American values. I know there is an intelligentsia out there that will move their glasses to the tip of their uplifted noses and haughtily inform me that I am so embarrassingly wrong. They may then tell me that the Tea Party movement began for this specific reason or that narrow set of specific reasons. Perhaps, Mr. Know-it-all, some of those reasons might be in line with American values.

10/16/2010

Regardless of where one stands regarding a specific issue, serious consideration should be given to the appropriate level of input or control exerted by the federal government. If we indeed have a Constitution that is worth anything more than a reminder of a more free time, then there are indeed issues that are state or local issues. If the federal government is to have its claws in everything, why bother with statehood? Do we really need to have state laws, when federal laws could provide a uniform set of rules and regulations across country?

If we are to insist on maintaining the facade of statehood and if there is indeed a manifestation of the phantom separation of church and state that is placed in the U.S. Constitution by liberal hacks, then shouldn't the phantom separation be incorporated at the state level? Self-promoting lib atheist activist Rob Sherman seems to think so. Apparently Mr. Sherman believes that the federal courts should extinguish any embers of state sovereignty that might still smolder in Illinois.

07/03/2010

Is there no expenditure that could be deemed unnecessary? Is there no task that could be viewed as not being the responsibility of the United States taxpayer? Is it not bad enough that our overlords in D.C. continue to impoverish our descendants for political purposes domestically? Is it not sufficient that our military is sent into far away lands, only to be handcuffed by dangerous rules of engagement and expected to ... well I am not sure what they are expected to do in Afghanistan?

I realize that Radio Free Asia might be a noble venture and certainly is not on the same level as taxpayer funded study of the "social milieu of male prostitutes in Hanoi". That said, it would seem our big-spending political parasites on Capitol Hill could at least make up their minds about why something is necessary! First we get to hear from Cap and Trade Joe Lieberman that giving Obama the ability to shut down the internet is something we should do because China has it. So we need to do things because countries like China, do them. Then we have Dick Lugar and and five co-spenders (or is that cosponsors), Stuart Smalley among them, suggesting that we permanently spend money on RFA... because "some of the governments in Asia spend millions of dollars each year to
jam RFA".

05/31/2010

My father, Samuel Earl Pierce Sr. was born September 27, 1946. His mother was initially going to name him after her father, Earl, but her mother had a better idea. My great-grandmother suggested giving him the name Samuel, the name of one of her eight other children.

My dad, a Vietnam Veteran, was named for his late Uncle Sam.

Sam Hoff Enlisted in the Army in 1942 and was killed in action at some point during World War II. He was single and had no children of his own to carry on his name. I am glad my great-grandmother thought to suggest his name to my grandmother so that my father and by extension, me, could to some small degree honor his sacrifice.

04/21/2010

Out of the darkness of Obama and Dimocrat rule, there is expected to arise a shining beacon of freedom and liberty. This bright light is to have its switch thrown on November 2, 2010 and by the end of January 2011, the circuit will be complete. The light will send the statists who remain, scurrying to the corners where they will seek nothing more than shelter as the light shines on in perpetuity!

Or not. Perhaps the stars are aligned for significant Republican gains in the midterm elections. If the Republican victors behave liberally, they will realign the stars for Dimocrat gains in the near future and the vicious cycle of American electoral politics will be perpetuated. Is it going to be different this time? Are the Republicans elected to save our society going to use the ... uhhh... umm... what is it?... umm... oh, the Constitution as a guide? Are they going to compare any legislation to which they affix their good names or for which they vote "Aye" to the Constitution to be sure it is within the LIMITS?

As we look toward November and the glorious delivery from statist hell, it might be useful to consider current affairs and wonder how different these situations will be once we are saved by the likes of Senator Mark Kirk and Senator Mike Castle.

01/24/2010

Given the current political climate and the opportunity it has provided to deviate from political business as usual, it appears that this type of deviation may no longer be possible. Amidst outrage over the intrusion of big government, one would think the electorate might want to support conservatives. This appears to either not be the case or be lost on the politically powerful in the Republican Party. I honestly don't know which scenario carries more weight, but I am fairly certain that both are factors.

I suppose a third factor might be labeling or sales games that have warped the way candidates are viewed or identified and have made certain labels chic. For example, there are those who seem to think being a Republican means being a conservative. There also seems to be some sort of intellectual gold star awarded (self-awarded in some cases) to those who claim to be "moderate" or "independent".

I am asking, what does it mean to be a "moderate"? I am not claiming to have the answer, for if I did, I would be even more confused. How could having the answer create more confusion? If what appears to me to make up a "moderate", is indeed true, then the resulting ideal is some version of big government mush. What do "moderates" seek? Do "moderates" have set principles? How much of one man's liberty would "moderates" offer to others? What is a "moderate" view of individual rights (and accompanying responsibilities)? If anyone has answers or insights, please share them!

03/22/2009

Given the words and actions of the leader of the Democrat Party, and unfortunately of our imperiled nation, I believe this picture could accompany the above definition.

This face is more than a symbol for the Democrat Party, it is also a symbol of why we need a "party of no." There have been recent whining columns and lecturing monologues devoted to admonishing the Republican Party that being the "party of no" is not the way to go. I suspect that many of the lecturers are comfortable with a liberal governing style or at least believe that the key to winning is to promise lottery jackpots to the same groups that are courted by the masters of class warfare in the Democrat Party. It would appear that saying no to government intrusion, massive wealth redistribution, oppressive taxation, the killing of industry, and the weakening of our security equates to not having ideas!

I would suggest that a "party of no" is not a party without ideas, but a party that has its priorities in order! Not that "no" should always be the answer, however, in the current political Hell, "no" must be said first to combat the encroachment. The unfortunately elected reader of TOTUS has an ideology based agenda formed through indoctrination and has never had to be tempered by actually earning a living in the other than political world. The Chicago activist days were nothing more than political stepping stones... he is not from Chicago, he moved there for the sake of political expediency. Now he spews forth grand ideas designed to spread the misery and equalize outcomes. He uses the bully pulpit to force a radical agenda down the collective throat of a nation.

To complain that Republicans should not just say "no" is to accept that the party must enter into the give away game. It is to accept that our society has degraded so far that we are not capable of making individual decisions, of caring for ourselves, or of charitable giving. It is to assert that individual citizens are not smart enough to control their destinies.

If some lib were to propose a "cap and trade" scheme to cripple industry and redistribute wealth globally for the sake of punishing emitters of the gas humans naturally exhale and that plants need to live, we would require a "party of NO!"

Imagine if some libiot were to propose legislation that forced those who preserve life to instead take it or made it legally acceptable to dismember and remove a full term baby from his mother's womb or legalized the practice of killing the child of a child without notifying the parents of the pregnant child, we would require a "party of NO!" By the way, the sickness of the libiot is displayed in these assaults on parental notification. Parental consent is required to go on a field trip or play a sport, but not to undergo the baby butchering procedure?

Say some libtard floated a big labor pay-off plan to eliminate the use of private ballots in the decision to unionize and harm a company, we would need a "party of NO!"

What if a powerful lib teleprompter reader wanted to control the salaries of private business executives? Can I get a "party of NO?"

Pretend some really stupid, yet powerful libs desired to ruin the health care of Canadians by making health care in our country an imitation of theirs, complete with rationing and ridiculously long waiting lists, thus depriving them a free country to visit when they need a medical procedure. Pretend that this dastardly nationalization of health care wasn't just intended to keep Canadians out of our country, but would also be thrust upon the majority of we citizens! We would require a "party of HELL NO" to tell the libtard elite that the citizens of this country will not be forced into a health care system that doesn't work, that has some board of bureaucrats deciding whose life is worthy of sparing, and that drives medical professionals to seek other lines of work while they and their comfortably wealthy friends can afford medical tourism and other methods of private care.

When the governing party proposes anything that does not fall within the established guidelines of its particular level of government, we need a "party of NO." When the libiots attempt to create more victims and therefore dependents in order to gain a permanent iron fisted majority, we need a "party of NO!" When Barack Obama and his leftist ilk seek to suppress the voices of dissent and turn this great nation into Cuba or Venezuala, we need a "party of NO!"

Note to RINO's and "reformers" please fell free to whine or , better yet, join the party that fits your agenda.

11/02/2008

The tidal wave of support for the absolute worst presidential candidate in my lifetime is thought provoking as well as alarming. What motivates a person to honestly believe in the promise of Barack Obama? What is the promise of Barack Obama? Will the Obama media machine's slick sales pitch to the irresponsible provide a return on the (largely undisclosed) investments?

I believe a large portion of the mindless support for the Marxist who must not be identified accurately (at least according to his apologists) stems from a childish narcissism. It makes sense that Obama's global unity rhetoric would appeal to people who believe they are the axis about which the globe revolves. Obama and his surrogates have been adept at striking the right chords with those that feel they are owed something. The sense of victim-hood has been magnified, manipulated, and targeted by the Obammunists. Who is responsible to meet the needs (real or perceived) of these people? Who owes these narcissists what they believe they are due?

While I never would have supported the brutal killing of innocent babies, as Obama supporters do (although I'm sure many of them block this nasty tidbit from their minds), I spent approximately 2/3 of my life developing a narcissistic mentality similar to that displayed by the Obamabots. The first 2/3 of my life was unpleasant and I felt entitled to something better. I was raised in environment where I learned to put my own wants above all else. No, I wasn't taught this directly, but indirectly through the actions and attitudes in my environment. It should surprise no one that this environment was filled with the type of Democratic voters who thought Republicans meant "big business." It should also surprise no one that these Democratic voters enjoyed their many self-indulgences (even the ones they couldn't afford) due to the fact that they were indirectly employed because of the hated "big business."

In my misery, I felt like there should be more for me. I believed that people with good jobs already had enough and should share. If somebody had something that I would like to have, I was jealous. I couldn't find an easy way to get what I wanted out of life. I was miserable and felt victimized by those that had success. My focus on myself led to near self-destruction.

I was lucky. I met the woman that would be my wife and began to grow-up. I began to see the value of self-reliance and individual responsibility. When my wife became pregnant with our first child I became fully aware of exactly who was responsible to meet my needs (and wants) as well as the needs of the family we had created!

My wife had a college education and a job. I had a low-paying job that I hated. So I decided to do something that an Obamabot would likely never dream of doing. I took responsibility for the future of myself and my family. I went back to school and eventually got a better job. I sought increasing responsibility at work and this coupled with my achievement of a B.S. degree, allowed me to attain an engineering position. During this time I also converted to Catholicism which filled a gap in my life.

In short, I grew up. I didn't ask taxpayers to provide for my future. It might shock the libiot Obamorons that the misery abated as I accepted responsibility. Another benefit of growing into self-reliance was a new generosity of spirit. I found that once I stopped expecting to receive, I actually felt inspired to give.

I hope the grown-up voters can overcome the narcissistic child voters Tuesday. Obama proposes to make it nearly impossible to follow the path I took. It will certainly be harder for people to grow up and be responsible for themselves when Obama's job killing dreams are realized.